CCP 08-28-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . DRAFT - ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 15 more than one community meeting regarding this project. He stated given the TCAAP development and the modifications to the HamJine Avenue. intersection and the expansion of Boston Scientifie and Medtronic facilities, he asked why they have not considered doing an AUAR. He stated they should not look at lhis small square of property and believe everything would work fine, but look at the community as a whole. Brigid Shields, 4365 Arden View Court, stated cars exiting right on Hamline Avenue in the evening will have to drive south to County Road F over to Lexington Avenue, north on Lexington A venue and back on Highway 96 to get back t9{w.l1ere they were already. He indicated this was a waste of time and money and it di<i.Jiot maKe sense. He believed there would bc a danger point with the daycare c.'Wtl-;~t:>~lso. He staled his only opportunity to get on Hamline Avenue was when traf~f'wasS\<)I?ped on Highway 96, but if traffic was not stopped at Highway 96, they would lietrapped.i~.Jheir own homes. Tawana Holtz, 1371 Arden View Drive, state..dShe has been a resideri!:f6.r..o.....ver two years. .,'-" ':C>;:--',?" She noted she was an employee ofBosto11ASei.~nlit1c andin the past COl.ll'>~~9fyears, she has been late to work due to the traffic and sl1eonIy had to go six block~.J'She asked if the development could be moved to the north side of Highway 96, which she believed could handle the traffic better. She stated putlingin.a large commercial development right next to an existing residentiirl<jevelopment wotlldbe like living in downtown St. Paul. ; .,.....".,- ".," "",','><<>< ". ""'",,'n._,',,,-', Gail Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View,.priv5,iSfrttCl.i'1l"fpetition had 268 signatures and when she walked around and spokelyJtlithe resid\lhts they were angry because the developer had notJistenedto them and Ii@ not addressed the major issues, such as traffic, access on Hamline Avenue, reductiorF,.of property values, elc. She stated the neighborhood wanled something better and: 110 solutions had been presented. She stated the Commissioners were probably c.onfuse<:lbecause what they were hearing from the resid"mif~~\Vhat they saw from thetraJfic study were in contradiction. She stated when th"ylookedatth\ldata from the trafTic study, they found the traffic going eastbound there 1.V~s a 48 seconddclay, which would go up to 51 seconds by 2007 without the d5~\lIopment being.built, butif the development was built the delay would be 132 seeowlif. She stated they had to look at the data and note the delay times significantly increasCl.iwith this de-ve1opment. She proposed to cut off the Ham line A venue exit and take outir!I;{Of lhe asphalt as well as flipping the first building and moving the parking lot up. She piBposedputting in an exit on Highway 96 so they had an exit coming into Highway 96 and..going out on to Highway 96. He recommended they put a signal at Keithson for a protected U-turn. She stated 268 residents could not be wrong. She urged them to deny the PUD and incorporate the solutions she presented in this development. Pam Hanson, 4367 Arden View Court, stated she was opposed to lhe development. She recommended the following changes to the conditions: 9. Landscape Plan Revisions change to: Additional coniferous trees (at least 8 trees) shall be provided along the west buffer yard of the development to im.Tease screening for the trail and residential properties. OR~fl